When the Smoke Clears: Focusing Events, Issue Definition, Strategic Framing, and the Politics of Gun Control*

Abstract

Objective. This article explores the strategic nature of framing following a focusing event. We argue that focusing events serve as catalysts for bill introductions along three particular causal stories prevalent in gun control policy: restrictive, punitive, and lenient. Methods. We employ a negative binomial regression model to investigate the effect firearm focusing events have on restrictive, lenient, and punitive bills introduced in both the House and the Senate. Results. Focusing events lead to an increase in restrictive, punitive, and lenient bills introduced in the House. In the Senate, however, focusing events lead to an increase in the number of punitive and lenient bills, while having no significant impact on the number of restrictive bills. Conclusion. This represents an increase in attention to gun control policy regardless of the causal story.Firearm focusing events have become an unfortunate part of the American experience over time. Examples of these events include, mass shootings at schools and colleges, such as Columbine High School in Colorado and Virginia Tech University in Virginia; assassinations of prominent leaders, such as President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; and assassination attempts such as the shootings against George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. Although relatively rare, these events can become catalysts for policy entrepreneurs to advance their preferred policy solutions in the form of bill proposals. The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of firearm focusing events on attention to gun control policy. We argue that focusing events serve as catalysts for agenda attention through bill introductions fitting three particular causal stories: restrictive, punitive, and lenient. In the aftermath of a focusing event, policy entrepreneurs use these causal stories to exploit the opening of a "policy window" (Kingdon, 1984) as well as to strategically counter opposing issue definitions. These efforts are made in order to redefine the gun control debate at a time of heightened public attention, which could potentially lead to issue redefinition and eventually policy change.Using a negative binomial regression model, we investigate whether firearm focusing events lead to an increase in restrictive, lenient, and punitive bills introduced in both the House and the Senate. We empirically test for the effect of focusing events on the type of frame used in bill introduction by using frames in bills as a measure of strategic framing. We find that focusing events lead to an increase in restrictive, punitive, and lenient bills in the House of Representatives. This represents an

Taking stock: The contribution of policy studies to our understanding of gun policy

“…Similarly, Fleming and others (2018) compared debates over gun control in the United States and Canada, finding that political opportunity structure, including both institutions and public opinion, are important for explaining differences in which policy frames become successful. Further, Fleming and others (2016) find that mass shootings provide focusing events that create a policy window for gun control; however, institutional arrangements in U.S. politics, mainly the U.S. Senate, prevent gun control laws from being passed. As Middlewood (2021) notes, the overrepresentation of rural Americans in the Senate helps to explain this impasse.…”

Protest and state policy agendas: Marches and gun policy after Parkland

“…In the case of gun policy, pro‐gun (right‐wing) organizations rely primarily on institutional tools rather than protests to influence policy. For example, the NRA engages in lobbying and provides campaign support for pro‐gun lawmakers to maintain the status quo (Fleming, 2012, 2016; Lacombe, 2021; Spitzer, 2020) compared to pro‐gun control groups, which have lacked external resources (Goss, 2006). Thus, pro‐gun groups may turn to popular protest only when they are unable to control the agenda through these “insider” strategies.…”

“…Gun control is a long‐standing and highly controversial issue in American politics, with a great deal of popular mobilization on both sides. Historically, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies in Congress and state government (who are largely but not exclusively Republican) have strongly opposed any gun control legislation (Fleming, 2012, 2016; Goss, 2006; Spitzer, 2020). While the NRA represents, at least in part, the interests of gun manufacturers, it also has a large and active membership of gun owners that it can mobilize in the name of defending and expanding gun rights (Lacombe, 2021).…”

Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States:Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures

“…In the analyses to follow, three “frames” employed by Fleming and others (2016) to categorize gun policies are used in quantitative and qualitative textual analysis to define the parameters of the debate over gun control and gun rights in Canada and the United States. The three frames represent “restrictive” gun policies that ban or regulate certain firearms , “punitive” gun policies that penalize the person for the unlawful use of firearms, or “lenient” gun policies that encourage gun ownership and emphasize gun rights .…”